[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.03.1307162323530.14924@syhkavp.arg>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 23:26:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
Jon Medhurst <tixy@...aro.org>,
Achin Gupta <achin.gupta@....com>,
Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 0/1] drivers: mfd: Versatile Express SPC support
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> version v5 of VExpress SPC driver, please read on the changelog for major
> changes and explanations.
>
> The probing scheme is unchanged, since after trying the early platform
> devices approach it appeared that the end result was no better than the
> current one. The only clean solution relies either on changing how
> secondaries are brought up in the kernel (later than now) or enable
> early platform device registration through DT. Please check this
> thread for the related discussion:
>
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/devicetree-discuss/2013-June/036542.html
>
> The interface was adapted to regmap and again reverted to old driver for
> the following reasons:
>
> - Power down registers locking is hairy and requires arch spinlocks in
> the MCPM back end to work properly, normal spinlocks cannot be used
> - Regmap adds unnecessary code to manage SPC since it is just a bunch of
> registers used to control power management flags, the overhead is just
> not worth it (talking about power down registers, not the vexpress config
> interface)
> - The locking scheme behind regmap requires all registers in the map
> to be protected with the same lock, which is not exactly what we want
> here
> - Given the reasons above, adding a regmap interface buys us nothing from
> a driver readability and maintainability perspective (again just talking
> about the power interface, a few registers) because for the SPC it would
> simply not be used
>
> /drivers/mfd is probably not the right place for this code as it stands (but
> probably will be when the entire driver, with DVFS and config interface, is
> complete).
>
> Thank you for the review in advance,
> Lorenzo
I've integrated this patch in my MCPM backend for TC2 patch series.
ACKs from concerned/interested people would be appreciated so I could
send this for ARM-SOC inclusion right away.
Nicolas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists